The Hitch
I think you are confusing me with someone else. I do not say everyone dopes, not even close.
Okay who is clean. List them and why!
What counterarguments?
The counterarguments I made in post #969 to DW's post #968, to which you have taken such strong objection. The point is that there are a myriad of reasons why a cyclist wins a race without doping. This is also true in any sport. And any athlete who has played sport at a high level can point to psychological factors or metrics as the reason for the success.
These metrics include momentum which was the one I addressed in #969. Two days ago the Montreal Canadians eliminated the Boston Bruins, a much superior team from the Stanley Cup playoffs because they psychologically used the Bruins intimidation tactics and comments to motivate them.
In your post of #972 you challenged such a psychological metric when I was referring to Evans ability to win the Giro without dope. And you are simply dismissive as opposed to responsive to my counter arguments in post #1002.
There are a myriad of psychological metrics such as the will to win, focus, concentration, the ability to disregard what you cannot control, visualization and the ability to negate performance anxiety and so on. The list could go on and on, that are more significant to the success of an athlete than dope.
You have a tendency to reduce cyclists to simple physiological specimens who if they lost must not have doped and if they win they must have doped. This is a simplistic way to understand the mind of an athlete.
For example in stage 6 of the Giro, Bouhanni comes off a mechanical and the back of the pack for an unlikely sprint win. That was not dope, that was the will to win.
You said dopers are lazy. That is nonsensical and scientifically incorrect. A brief overview on the history of doping will show you that many of the most dedidacated, hardcore workers with incalculable will power were dopers. They need to be because doping requires more training and significantly more all round effort than being clean.
Armstrong is one example there are others
Armstrong would have been a middle of the pack rider without dope. He would have not won diddly. He would have at best been in the top 30 of the TDF based on his athletic skills. Rather than accept what he was, he cheated.
He got lazy. He resorted to dope to make up for what he did not have. That does not mean he did not train hard, but he and all his team-mates got lazy to make up for what they did not have physically. Hamilton would not have even been a top ranked pro without dope no matter how hard he worked.
Edit - provide me with the scientific studies.
You may also consider the financial aspect. We know that teams had insitutionalized doping programmes, spending thousands, hundreds of thousands in some cases on hiring doping doctors, and funding the whole conspiracy? Why did teams in the 90's and 2000's spend such vast sums on doping their lazy riders? Why didn't they just hire non lazy ones and save themselves both money and the risk of getting caught?
You completely misunderstand how payment for doping was accomplished. It was
not the team(s) who paid the doping doctors such as Ferrari, but
the riders, who either paid him a lump sum or a percentage of their salaries. That was the standard method of payment used by Ferrari and Fuentes etc. The affidavits of all of the USPS riders in the USADA case specifically explain this. Read them. The USPS had to sell old bikes out of the rear of the bus to promote their doping. Hardly a
team thousands of dollars operation!
The motivation to dope was due to the pressure from Armstrong and Bruyneel so as to keep their jobs. Read Michael Berry's affidavit in the USADA case.
If your arguments are as solid as you claim, you should have no problem answering these questions with more than just blanket generalizations.
I have above.
What's with your obsession around my real life personality. You keep making comments about who I am. Do you not realize discussing people's real life personalities is against the rules?
Who am I you want to know?
None of your ****ing business.
LOL People acquire knowledge and understanding through their education, experience in life and the credible literature they read. When people are transparent about these things, then what they say either gives them credibility or not. The basis for their opinions can be assessed. In your case your anonymity as like many posters in the Clinic only assures you should not be treated seriously. Unlike you I am upfront about who I am so anyone can assess my cred and say you are full of $hit or not.
In your case you are this absent enigma with a gazillion posts which in your mind somehow thinks that gives you credibility about what you say. By all means remain anonymous, I don't care. Just don't expect reasonable people to give any credit to what you say.
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram